Wed 3rd Sep 2014 | Last updated: Tue 2nd Sep 2014 at 16:41pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Archbishop Longley to lead new round of Anglican-Catholic talks

By on Thursday, 3 February 2011

Archbishop Bernard Longley will chair a meeting of 18 bishops and scholars in May (Photo: Mazur)

Archbishop Bernard Longley will chair a meeting of 18 bishops and scholars in May (Photo: Mazur)

Archbishop Bernard Longley of Birmingham is to chair the third phase of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), which will begin in May with a meeting of 18 bishops and scholars in Italy.

The Vatican released a statement today announcing that the dialogue commission would meet on May 17 to 27 at the ecumenical Monastery of Bose in northern Italy.

Pope Benedict XVI and Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, met in late 2009. They pledged to continue the formal dialogue even as the ordination of women as priests and bishops, the blessing of gay unions and the ordination of openly gay clergy threatened the unity of the Anglican Communion and made it more difficult for Catholics and Anglicans to see a way for their communities to draw closer together.

Shortly after the Pope and archbishop met, the Vatican announced that a new round of dialogue, referred to as ARCIC III, would deal with “fundamental questions regarding the Church as communion local and universal, and how in communion the local and universal Church comes to discern right ethical teaching”.

Within the Anglican Communion, some local churches have made decisions on ethical issues – including those involving homosexuality – without the full support of the wider Church.

ARCIC was established after Pope Paul VI and Anglican Archbishop Michael Ramsey of Canterbury met in 1966. The first round of talks, known as ARCIC I, met from 1970 to 1982 and reached agreements on baptism, Eucharist and ministry, and began work on issues related to authority in the Church. ARCIC II met from 1983 to 2005 and reached agreements on papal authority, salvation and the church, the church as communion and on a variety of beliefs about Mary.

ARCIC III will be chaired by Archbishop Longley and Anglican Archbishop David Moxon of New Zealand.

Several women will be involved in ARCIC III; the Anglican bishops and theologians named to the dialogue commission include Paula Gooder, a biblical scholar and professor at several British universities; and Bishop Linda Nicholls, the area bishop for Trent-Durham in the Diocese of Toronto. Canon Alyson Barnett-Cowan, a Canadian ecumenist and director for Unity Faith and Order at the Anglican Communion Office, is one of the ARCIC III co-secretaries.

The Catholic women named to ARCIC III are Janet Smith, a moral theologian at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, and Sister Teresa Okure, a professor of New Testament studies at the Catholic Institute of West Africa in Nigeria and a member of the Society of the Holy Child Jesus.

  • Warren

    While I have hope that the Holy Spirit can reconcile non-Catholic christians to Rome, I hold out very little hope that ARCIC is the process through which unity will be achieved. The mainstream protestant churches, the Anglican Communion included, have so abandoned Christianity that they have made themselves sterile ground. We might apply to ecumenism what Christ counselled in today’s Gospel, i.e., it might be best to shake at them the dust from our sandals, for the Anglicans have so rejected the Faith of the Apostles. The Anglicans, at least their leaders, profess a different Christ than do Apostolic Christians.

  • Sandy Weaver

    What a waste of time! It is perfectly obvious that the Anglicans have no clear idea of what they believe, even assuming they once did. How can the Catholic Church possibly seriously discuss any sort of common belief as regards gays, women clerics or anything much else? ARCIC I and ARCIC II arrived at some sort of consensus, but it was hardly persuasive to any Protestant. ARCIC III starts from an even worse position and is futile. Those Anglicans who have genuinely Catholic beliefs are free to join the Catholic Church at any time they want, and have even been offered the absurd Ordinariate route in case they have hang-ups about being part of their locam Catholic diocese.

  • Anonymous

    While he was auxiliary bishop in Westminster, +Bernard Longley was involved in the negotiations with the dissenting homosexuals now known as the ‘Soho Masses Pastoral Council (SMPC)’ for the setting up of the now-infamous Soho Masses. Members of the SMPC wrote the following about their negotiations for the Soho Masses with Bishop Longley in ‘Pink News’:- http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/10/01/new-archbishop-of-birmingham-helped-organise-gay-masses :- Martin Pendergast said:- “I can assure others who have commented that there was no demand on us to ‘remain celibate and agree that homosexual acts are wrong’ ” and also Terence Weldon (Eucharistic Minister and SMPC committee member) said:- “I agree with my friend and colleague Martin (above) who notes that during the extensive consultation process around the Soho gay Masses, Bishop Longley at no time expressed any demand that we remain celibate or agree with Church teaching”. The whole shocking story can be found here:-
    http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/FEBNewsletter11.pdf This hardly inspires people with confidence. Will Archbishop Longley remain silent on points of Catholic doctrine when dialoguing with Anglicans?

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    pat21, thanks for alerting bloggers to our report on Archbishop Longley – actually, it is more than a report it is a letter from a London man full of irrefuable evidence about the Soho Masses which the bishop, now archbishop, ignored.

    Personally, I think these ecumenical talks are a waste of time. All they do is allow nice people to get to know other nice people. Well meaning but misguided.

    I think the time has come to make the agendas and minutes of these meetings public, plus the financial costs involved, so we can all see what is going on and whether or not these talks are likely to result in conversions to the Faith. No other outcome is acceptable.

  • Neville DeVilliers

    The archbishop is correct in wanting to reach out to gays and make them feel welcome in church. That becomes the first step to any effective process for dialoguing with them on a broader range of differences. Pulpit-pounding will simply drive them and anyone else you’re trying to convince to head for the doors. The same is true with the Anglicans.

    It is all fine and well for Catholic leaders to surround themselves with agreeable Anglicans ready to jump their ship over the ordination of women. Most of them are Anglo Catholics who will ,undoubtedly, join the Ordinariate in due course. Yet, what of Anglicans who don’t agree with Rome on any issue other than the ordination of women priests?

    In the worldwide Anglican communion here are quite a few “broad” and “low”,or evangelical church types who also oppose the ordination of women and gays to the priesthood. Nigeria alone may have the largest percentage of them. Aren’t those farthest removed from Rome the whole reason for continuing ARCIC?.

  • Anonymous

    Neville
    What you stated contradicts The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s statement on pastoral outreach to homosexuals. Bishop Longley’s silence cannot be squared with the teaching found in the 1986 CDF document which can be read on the Vatican website:- http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html “We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin. We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve. . . ”

    ” . . . All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous. . . ”
    For further proof of the dissent promoted at these Masses, see here:- http://www.christianorder.com/features.html

  • Anonymous

    Neville,

    There’s nothing to add to what pat21 says below since he is quoting the key Vatican instruction on the matter of the pastoral care of homosexuals.

    However, I want to take issue with this widespread notion that “pulpit-pounding” as you put it, drives people away.

    That is NOT the lesson of history. Throughout the history of the Church, forceful preaching – preaching the undiluted truths of the Faith with conviction, wins souls for Christ.

    Read the sermons of St Alphonusus Liguouri, for example. Crystal clear warnings that if we fail to conform our lives to Christ, we are doomed. Forever.

    Tell you what – it worked with me. In the days immediately prior to THAT COUNCIL we had sermons that left us in no doubt about the central role of the Church in God’s plan of salvation and we had regular warnings that Hell was on the horizon if we persisted in grave sin.

    St Paul teaches that “Faith comes through hearing.” If these homosexuals and their partners are being given the impression by Archbishops Longley and Nichols that they are doing nothing wrong, that the Church really needs to move with the times and listen to the Martin Pendergasts of this world, then it is most certainly “woe to those pastors…”, because they are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

    Pulpit-pounding is precisely what the “gays” need – just like the rest of us.

  • Church

    Ah! The “Learned Bongley”, as we called him at seminary – and still the same glasses…

  • Anonymous

    Never mind his glasses – what were his beliefs at seminary: has he lost the Catholic faith or did he never adhere to it in the first place?

  • Buddy

    Outside the Catholic Church there’s no salvation. Dogma of the Faith, or it used to be when I was growing up. So that being the case what is there to discuss?

  • Daphne McLeod

    Archbishop Longley is on record as agreeing to anything but even he is going to have difficulty agreeing with every variation of Anglican ‘belief’. Until they arrive at one teaching on Faith and Morals confirmed by one single Authority, there is no point in holding any talks with Anglicans. Individuals of good will can come into the Church at any time without pointless ARCIC talks.

  • Anonymous

    Well said Daphne. I was received into the Catholic Church 25 years ago, and was horrified at the rubbish spoken on the ARCIC cassettes that somebody lent me sometime after my reception into the Church. I used to call it F(ARCIC)AL. The late Michael Davies’ excellent piece on the Vatican’s response to ARCIC can be found here:- http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_1992/features_junjul92.html

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    SPOT absolutely ON Daphne!

  • Sandy Weaver

    If someone does not accept Catholic teaching and makes for the door let him go! There were many who abandoned Christ because they could not accept his hard teaching. He didn’t chase after them saying “carry on in your sin and disbelief, and lets enter into dialogue”! It is high time our clergy adopted this stance. If they don’t the Catholic Faith will become indistinguishable from Anglicanism at its worst. “You are the salt of the earth, and if the salt loses its taste……….”

  • Catherine

    How many broken hearts are there – now long since gone – who could not grasp what was happening to their beloved Faith years ago? There are still broken hearts, the broken hearts of parents of those children born since the late 1960′s whose parents sent them to Roman Catholic Schools, including those who made sacrifices in sending some of these children to fee paying Convent schools to be educated by the Sisters …. in the belief they would have sound Catholic teaching – as they themselves had – supported by their parents at home. WRONG!

    The Convents are now closed, the Convent my daughter attended having been leased years ago to the Muslims, as a Muslim school! The modified post-Vatican II habits long since abondoned for floral skirts, blouses, perms and earrings!

    I am all for dialogue with non-Catholics – BUT – where is the concentration on the Catholic education of our children – long since gone? Then one asks how can these children have their Catholic Faith when the teachers themselves do not have understanding of the Faith?

    I know I write this in vain, but only in the knowledge that God Himself knows I have written it. I do not for a moment think that any member of the clergy, (as I see it), nor a bishop, will acknowledge it! Face it – our dear children are now mostly Protestant – or worse still – Athiest … !!

    Our Lady of Walsingham, St. Thomas More, St. Thomas Beckett and all the Martyrs of the Islands, please pray for us – for we, (especially the Hierarchy), are greatly in need of your Intercession. God have Mercy on us all.

  • Anonymous

    Catherine
    Your writing isn’t in vain. Nothing done for the glory of God is in vain. Time and time again, we have seen that we can’t rely on our hireling prelates anymore – but we can always rely on Our Lord and Our Lady. One of the ways we can bring about effective change is to fulfil Our Lord’s requests at Paray-le-Monial and Our Lady’s requests at Fatima, all fully approved by the Church. Do the First Friday and First Saturday devotions and try to get as many others as possible to do them. Details here:-

    The Nine First Friday and the Five First Saturday Devotions

    Those involved in any form of Catholic Action, will be only too aware of the growing threats facing those who wish to remain faithful to traditional Catholic teaching and practice. Obviously, prayer must accompany the action that all Catholics, by virtue of their baptism, are called to take in order to defend and promote our glorious Faith. Our Blessed Lord, in revelations to St Margaret Mary Alacoque at Paray-le-Monial in France, and Our Blessed Lady, in revelations to the Fatima seer Sr. Lucia at Pontevedra in Spain, have given us most efficacious forms of prayer in order to overcome these threats, save our souls and help save other souls – namely, the devotions of the Nine First Fridays in reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and the Five First Saturdays in reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

    The Nine First Fridays

    Our Blessed Lord appeared to St Margaret Mary on many occasions. Four apparitions, known as the “Great Revelations” took place between 1673 and 1675. During these revelations, Our Blessed Lord requested the following:-
    •The institution of a Holy Hour in memory of His Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane (St Margaret Mary was asked to do this from 11pm to midnight on Thursday nights; a practice we could imitate).
    •A Communion of Reparation to be received on the First Friday of each month.
    •A Feast in honour of His Sacred Heart, to be kept on the Friday after the octave of Corpus Christi.
    •Consecration to His Sacred Heart.
    Our Blessed Lord gave twelve promises to St Margaret Mary for souls who would practice devotion to His Sacred Heart:-
    1.I will give them all the graces necessary for their state of life.
    2.I will establish peace in their homes.
    3.I will console them in all their afflictions.
    4.I will be their secure refuge during life and especially at the hour of death.
    5.I shall bestow abundant blessings on all their undertakings.
    6.Sinners shall find in My Heart the source and ocean of infinite mercy.
    7.Tepid souls shall become fervent.
    8.Fervent souls shall rise rapidly to a high degree of perfection.
    9.I will bless every place where an image of my Sacred Heart shall be exposed and honoured.
    10.I will give to priests the power to touch the hardest hearts.
    11.Those who shall promote this devotion shall have their names written in My Heart, never to be blotted out.
    12.I promise you in the excessive mercy of My Heart, that My all-powerful love will grant to all those who receive Communion on the First Friday of every month, for nine consecutive months, the grace of final repentance, and that they shall not die without receiving the Sacraments, and that My Divine Heart shall be their safe refuge in that last moment.
    A concrete way in which to practise this devotion, can be found in the book “The Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus” by Fr John Croiset SJ (TAN books ISBN 0-89555-334-1). The sleeve notes from the book state the following:- “Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is not “just another book on the Sacred Heart devotion”, but it can be truly said to be the book on this devotion. Written by the spiritual director of St Margaret Mary (1647-1690), the book comes from the pen of a man intimately familiar with every aspect of the revelations given by Our Lord to this famous saint; thus, the book is actually the “key” to understanding the importance and the centrality of the Sacred Heart devotion for our lives as true Catholics . . . Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus was actually commissioned by Our Lord Himself through St Margaret Mary, and as the author neared completion of it, the Saint told him that Our Lord said it was so completely in accord with His wishes that it would never be necessary to make any change in it. Later she revealed to Fr Croiset that it was Our Lord Himself who had inspired him with the ideas in this book and that it was so pleasing to Him that “none other but Himself could have arranged everything so much to His wishes”.

    The Five First Saturdays

    The following is taken from Sister Lucia’s memoirs (she is writing in the third person). The events took place at her convent in Pontevedra, Spain:-

    “On December 10th 1925 the Most Holy Virgin appeared to her (Sr Lucia) and by Her side, elevated on a luminous cloud, was a child. The Most Holy Virgin rested Her hand on her (Sr Lucia’s) shoulder, and as She did so, She showed her a heart encircled with thorns, which She was holding in Her other hand. At the same time, the Child said; “Have compassion on the Heart of your Most Holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment, and there is no-one to make an act of reparation to remove them.” Then the Most Holy Virgin said; Look, My Daughter, at My Heart, surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce me every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You at least try to console me, and announce that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the First Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess, receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to me.”

    A couple of years later, on November 1st 1927, Sr Lucia wrote a letter to Dona Maria Filomena Morais de Miranda, highlighting the importance of the First Saturday devotion and clarifying a couple of points. Here are some excerpts from that letter:-

    “I don’t know if you already know about the reparatory devotion of the five Saturdays to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. As it is still recent, I would like to inspire you to practice it, because it is requested by Our Dear Heavenly Mother and Jesus has manifested a desire that it be practised. Also, it seems to me that you would be fortunate, dear godmother, not only to know it and to give Jesus the consolation of practising it, but also to make it known and embraced by many other persons. It consists in this: During five months on the first Saturday, to receive Jesus in Communion, recite a Rosary, keep Our Lady company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary, and make a confession. This confession can be made a few days earlier, and if in this previous confession you have forgotten the intention (of making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary) one can offer the following confession for this intention, provided that on the first Saturday one receives Holy Communion in the state of grace, with the intention of repairing for offences against the Most Holy Virgin, and which afflict Her Immaculate Heart. It seems to me, my dear godmother, that we are fortunate to be able to give Our Dear Heavenly Mother this proof of love, for we know that She desires it to be offered to Her. As for myself, I avow that I am never so happy as when first Saturday arrives. Isn’t it true that our greatest happiness is to belong entirely to Jesus and Mary and to love Them, and Them alone, without reserve? We see this so clearly in the lives of the saints . . . They were happy because they loved, and we, my dear godmother, we must seek to love as they did, not only to enjoy Jesus, which is the least important – because if we do not enjoy Him here below, we will enjoy Him up above – but to give Jesus and Mary the consolation of being loved . . . . and that in exchange for this love They might be able to save many souls . . .” (emphases mine).
    Sister Lucia was asked by her confessor, Father Gonçalves, why Our Lady had asked for five First Saturdays, and not any other number. It was Sr Lucia’s habit to make a holy hour from eleven in the evening to midnight, especially on Thursday evenings, according to the requests of the Sacred Heart of Jesus at Paray-le-Monial. On the night of May 29-30, 1930, she put Fr Gonçalves’ question to Our Blessed Lord and received the following answer:-

    “My daughter, the reason is simple. There are five types of offences and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary:

    1.Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception.
    2.Blasphemies against Her Perpetual Virginity.
    3.Blasphemies against Her Divine Maternity, in refusing at the same time to recognize Her as the Mother of men.
    4.The blasphemies of those who publicly seek to sow in the hearts of children indifference or scorn, or even hatred of this Immaculate Mother.
    5.The offences of those who outrage Her directly in Her holy images.
    Sadly, even among traditional Catholics, the prominence that should be given to these two crucial devotions appears to be dwindling. This is a plea to all Catholics to either begin these devotions of reparation, or take them up again, and if at all possible, to practice them continuously, and to get as many others as possible to practice them. Sacrilege and blasphemy against Our Blessed Lord and Our Blessed Lady have attained unprecedented heights and are being added to daily, so recourse to these devotions has become increasingly urgent.

  • Bridget

    I must agree with most of the comments here and I dont have anymore to add except to say thatwe must continue to pray for our pope and get out our rosaries, in our homes and in our churches! Thankyou Catherine, Pat CT, Pat21, Daphne, Sandy, Warren, for all your information and clear thoughts. The pen has to be mightier than the sword but the rosary is the weapon!

  • Anonymous

    The Catholic Church is quite clear in Her instructions for the pastoral care of homosexuals. Those instructions do not include a false application of charity. Our Lord is always merciful and willing to forgive, no matter what the sin, but only insofar as there exists true sorrow in the penitent and a desire to avoid sin in the future.

    Hence, the Church says that homosexuals must pledge themselves to a life of celibacy and that care must be taken to ensure that they do not gather and/or socialise with other homosexuals (occasion of sin). These are the terms for “reaching out,” no others can exist unless the Gospels themselves be nullified in which Our Lord Himself told penitents to “go and sin no more.” Ah! the errors that souls fall into when they cut themselves off from the true vine!

    What has been established in Soho with the help of +Bernard Longley is an affront to God, as was his subsequent Episcopal consecration as reward. The Pope really needs to take a serious look at the hierarchy in Britain.

  • Anonymous

    This kind of ecumenical rubbish belongs to the hippy era of the 1960s. In that sense it should be called ARCHAIC III.

    Anglicans take note! the Catholic Church does not, will not, cannot approve divorce, homosexual activity and women clergy. It’s not in her infallible moral nature to do so. All should remember the profound rupture that exists between the divine Catholic religion founded by He who died a Victim for sin on the Cross and the religion invented by he who died a victim of syphilis in his bed (Henry VIII)! No amount of ARCIC’s is going to alter the fact that Anglicans need to return to their Father’s House if they wish to be saved.

  • Anonymous

    Possibly that the Archbishop of Canterbury is really just an Archlayman (invalidity of Anglican Orders), and that he really needs to return to the Father’s House lest he perish. What do you think the chances of that discussion have, Buddy? Yes, I agree!

  • AgingPapist

    minutes, agendas, financial costs? Too bad more Catholics don’t also check into these items when it comes to the overall administration of the diocese. You can’t expect to be told the RCIC costs etc. from those who don’t believe you should know what they’re doing with your own money.

    What’s more you’ll never know if such talks will indeed result in conversions if you don’t have the talks in the first place. There are no guarantees in life. So, there are no guarantees before you’ve spent your money and set your agenda that the talks will lead to your desired outcome. That’s the whole point of talking and negotiating in any organization, whether it be the Church, between diplomats, or union negotiations, etc.

  • Neville DeVilliers

    “Some “pulpit-pounding” on the need for conversion to the one, true Church is the way we’ve always won converts.”

    There are many converts who would completely disagree with you, both as to your methods and results. There are also many of the clergy who specialize in the winning of converts, e.g. Paulists and Jesuits to name just two. Your method is for converting intellectual munchkins, the insecure, and the almost totally brain dead. It won’t work with educated and sophisticated Protestants, or any other group. It is little wonder, with these tactics, Catholics can’t go out the door of the Church fast enough in the U.S.
    “To allow Anglicans to “convert” by bringing their own “liturgies” and prayer books with them, is just too incredible for words.”.

    You had best familiarize yourself with the Anglican Ordinariate and become accustomed to it. You’ve just contradicted your entire thesis. This “orthodox” pope wouldn’t agree with you. He doesn’t believe for a moment that the Anglican liturgies and prayer books are foreign to the Catholic liturgical experience. In fact, they are an extension of it. To the extent that they are foreign to that experience, they will be changed. Of that you can be most certain.

    I don’t think the idea of the Ordianariate will be a smashing success for a number of reasons ,quite apart from the issue of whether their liturgies are “Catholic” enough, or in some way theologically tainted.

  • Neville DeVilliers

    Are you arguing that archbishop Longley is disobeying the CDW? Because that is what you’re suggesting here.

    Bishops and laity will disagree with the CDW and other dicasteries in the Vatican and often receive mixed messages. Typical of all bureaucracies. We don’t know who gave the archbishop the green light to go ahead. Perhaps, the Congregation of Bishops. Possibly, the congregation dealing with ecumenical issues went over the CDW’s head, directly to Pope Benedict. It is difficult to say at this point. Any number of scenarios are possible.

    CDW won’t stand in the path of what the pope sees as his larger interest and duty at the moment. RCIC is important for the Church’s greater outreach. The CDW can issue decrees until the cows come home. They’re usually disregarded in the area of liturgical matters by clergy and laity anyway.

    The CDW is in a terrible state of dissaray at the moment. So, like most Vatican congregations, the right-hand probably doesn’t know what the left-hand is doing. His Grace , I have no doubt, will stay within church guidelines. Insofar, as they can be ascertained at any moment.

  • Anonymous

    Neville
    Firstly, I never mentioned the CDW, which is the Congregation for Divine Worship. I referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)
    Secondly, are you also using the title ‘AgingPapist’ as some of your initial comments now seem to be coming up under that name. Perhaps it’s my computer . . . .
    I’m not ‘arguing’ anything. I have presented a set of facts. Draw your own conclusions. I will reiterate those facts again:-

    FACT 1:- Prior to the now infamous Soho Masses moving to a Catholic church (they were once held in an Anglican church) +Bernard Longley was given full details of the public and well-documented dissent of the homosexuals he was in negotiations with. This was stated in a letter wrote to him which was reproduced in Catholic Truth journal:- http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/FEBNewsletter11.pdf

    FACT 2:- Two of the most notorious dissidents from the Soho Mass group publicly stated the following on the ‘Pink News’ website about +Bernard Longley:- http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/10/01/new-archbishop-of-birmingham-helped-organise-gay-masses:- Martin Pendergast said:- “I can assure others who have commented that there was no demand on us to ‘remain celibate and agree that homosexual acts are wrong’ ” and also Terence Weldon (Eucharistic Minister and SMPC committee member) said:- “I agree with my friend and colleague Martin (above) who notes that during the extensive consultation process around the Soho gay Masses, Bishop Longley at no time expressed any demand that we remain celibate or agree with Church teaching” In other words, during these negotiations, +Bernard Longley remained SILENT on this crucial teaching, a fact acknowledged and publicly stated by the Soho Mass people. +Bernard Longley has never refuted this.

    FACT 3:- The 1986 CDF document on homosexuality http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html clearly and unequivocally states to all Bishops of the Church that:- “But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, OR SILENCE ABOUT IT, IN AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE PASTORAL CARE IS NEITHER CARING NOR PASTORAL. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve. . .”

    You stated “His Grace , I have no doubt, will stay within church guidelines. Insofar, as they can be ascertained at any moment”. Clearly His Grace has NOT stayed within what you call ‘church guidelines’ on this matter – and calling them “guidelines . . . insofar as they can be ascertained at any moment” implies that they can be ignored or that Church teaching on homosexuality may be changed – are you of that opinion? The 1986 Letter to the Bishops was signed by then Cardinal Ratzinger, and approved by Pope John Paul II who ordered it to be published.

    You may have ‘no doubts’ about +Bernard Longley, but in view of his silence on such a critical issue, it is quite in order and reasonable that others might question whether he is the most appropriate person to head any future ARCIC discussions.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    pat21, absolutely crystal clear.

    You are completely right to correct this notion that Archbishop Longley (and + Nichols) are permitting these Masses to support chaste homosexuals keen to live in accordance with Catholic teaching. That is manifestly not the case and, given the evidence you have provided here, anyone who persists in making this claim, in full view of this evidence, is being patently dishonest. I stop short of calling anyone a deliberate liar, but dishonest – absolutely.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    I clicked on “like” (my own post!) thinking it was the edit button. I notice that sometimes there IS no edit button which is a nuisance. On this occasion I just wanted to change “are” to “is” (Archbishop Longley IS permitting…) so no big deal, but I wonder if anyone knows why it is that the edit button sometimes disappears?

    Or to put it another way, how come the “edit” button disappears so often while the Modernists/Liberals stick around (and are never excommunicated….?)

  • Neville DeVilliers

    that homosexuals must pledge themselves to a life of celibacy and that care must be taken to ensure that they do not gather and/or socialise with other homosexuals (occasion of sin).
    —————————————————————————————————————————————————-
    If the pope “really needs to take a serious look at the hierarchy in Britain”he had best be looking at who he admits to holy orders worldwide. For bishops and popes alike knowingly advance to the priesthood homosexuals who have been assessed at every stage of their development. Many are exceedingly holy men and many are not.

    Pledging them to celibacy obviously has done nothing to protect innocent minors and teenage boys. As for the other requirement, that gays should refrain from “socializing” with other homosexuals is phariseeism in the extreme and, minimally, guilt by association. Such a restraint is not a requirement of the Church, by the way. If it were, the hierarchy would be morally bound to empty virtually every monastery, convent, and seminary throughout the Church.
    Your comment about the good and holy archbishop Longley is disgusting and revolting. You need to have an extended conversation with your confessor. for you’ve obviously forgotten “memento caritatis”.

  • Neville DeVilliers

    The decrees of the Vatican are always open to contention and different interpretations. Blunderings in all areas appear to be a common trait especially to the dicasteries of this pontiff. Whether it be in the areas of liturgy or church administration.

    To immediately suggest the archbishop is in open defiance of the CDF or any dicastery ruling is both premature and may be completely without foundation until you know all the facts of the case. Since you obviously don’t know all the facts, but have, instead chosen to belief what may be pure fiction, I would give the archbishop the benefit of the doubt.

    You continue to repeat the same materials you first published. Repetition of groundless and unfactual charges do not suddenly make them true. Archbishop Longley’s silence is not tantamount to admission of either guilt or innocence, either in canon or English civil procedure. I would remember St. Thomas More’s experience along these lines. We should also assume His Grace’s discussions are within Church guidelines until we have reason to confirm that they are not.

  • Neville DeVilliers

    Outside the Catholic Church there’s no salvation. Dogma of the Faith, or it used to be when I was growing up. So that being the case what is there to discuss?
    ————————————————————————————————————————————————-
    Ah, the pitfalls of an infallible Church. Such nonsense has been shelved for “outside the Mystical Body of Christ” there is no etc. When someone can finally get it right, will he/she please awaken and enlighten the soporific pew dwellers

  • Neville DeVilliers

    “given the evidence you have provided here”

    Undocumented or unfounded claims do not constitute “evidence”. This rubbish unfit to line a dog’s basket wouldn’t hold up in an ecclesiastical trial, a British, or an American court. His Grace is innocent until proved guilty. He’s free to go back to his palace in Birmingham.

  • Anonymous

    “If the pope “really needs to take a serious look at the hierarchy in Britain”he had best be looking at who he admits to holy orders worldwide.”

    Not at all, prudence with respect to who is advanced for the Episcopacy is quite sufficient to ensure orthodoxy.

    “For bishops and popes alike knowingly advance to the priesthood homosexuals who have been assessed at every stage of their development. Many are exceedingly holy men and many are not.”

    Rubbish! Some liberal bishops have certainly been guilty of pushing the homosexual agenda in the modern Church, but not the Popes. It has always been the Church’s position not to ordain men to the priesthood who have homosexual tendencies, particularly due to the potential for scandal. I would ask you to provide written or verbal Magisterial evidence to the contrary. Your assertion, I’m afraid, is not sufficient.

    “Pledging them to celibacy obviously has done nothing to protect innocent minors and teenage boys.”

    Thank you, that confirms the reason why the Church has never knowingly ordained homosexually-inclined men to the priesthood. As for the abuse of boys, once again liberal bishops moved abusers to various parishes knowing of their predatory vice. That’s why, as was the case pre-Vatican II, Popes must be very careful who they raise to the Episcopate.

    “As for the other requirement, that gays should refrain from “socializing” with other homosexuals is phariseeism in the extreme and, minimally, guilt by association.”

    No it’s not! It’s prudent regulation to ensure an avoidance of occasions of sin. Surely you wouldn’t recommend giving a job as barman to a reformed alchoholic? Maybe you don’t believe in temptation, or you reject that man is weak and prone to sin? Read the Church’s instructions on the pastoral care of homosexual persons, you won’t find the scandal of Soho anywhere advocated there. Quite the contrary.

    “Such a restraint is not a requirement of the Church, by the way. If it were, the hierarchy would be morally bound to empty virtually every monastery, convent, and seminary throughout the Church.”

    So you assert that homosexuality is rampant in every seminary, convent and monastery throughout the universal Church? That’s quite a statement! Evidence please.

    “Your comment about the good and holy archbishop Longley is disgusting and revolting. You need to have an extended conversation with your confessor. for you’ve obviously forgotten “memento caritatis”.

    Really! So you deny that Archbishop Longley was instrumental in setting up the Soho scandal? Please do enlighten me with the real story, since I would not wish to falsely accuse the Archbishop or, indeed, his British superiors.

    As for “memento caritatis,” true charity is to speak the truth and support it with evidence. Pretend charity is to seek to defend an offender against truth while claiming that the divine institution of truth itself, namely the Church, fills her seminaries and religious orders with people inclined to serious vice. Now that perverse notion of charity is truly worthy of a very long conversation with one’s confessor.

  • Anonymous

    Neville / Aging Papist, whoever you are.
    Methinks thou dost protest too much . . . !
    Fortunately, people will be able to follow the links to the factual information that has been provided and as I said before, draw their own conclusions, one way or the other. Incidentally, I note you didn’t answer my previous question – are you one of those who think that the 1986 CDF document on homosexuality can be ignored by bishops, and do you think that the Church will change Her teaching on homosexuality? I’d be very interested to know your honest opinion on these points.

  • Anonymous

    Well said Martyjo. The 1986 CDF document on homosexuality states “No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.” With the exception of EnCourage, which is loyal to the Magisterium, all groups for Catholic homosexuals in the UK, including Quest, Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement / Soho Masses Pastoral Council are openly dissident.

  • Anonymous

    I think you are quite mistaken, the Church does not have to spend money on useless congresses with heretics and unbelievers in order to convert souls to the true Faith. If what you say is true, then why did the Church never involve herself in such ventures before Vatican II? And let me remind you that she converted souls in their multitudes when she was uncompromising with the divine truths entrusted to her. Today, Churchmen represent a Church mealy mouthed rather than militant, and it shows in both the decline in conversions and the decline in Mass attendance, vocations, etc. Catholicism is not dependent on financial investment, but on the fidelity to sacred tradition of those who claim to have the true Faith, especially the shepherds!

  • Anonymous

    You have it in a nutshell, pat21!

  • Anonymous

    The same tried and tested methods of the Church, i.e., militant preaching of divine truth and condemnation of error, has always worked with all classes of people and levels of intellect because it is divine grace that operates through the Catholic Church. Your argument is based purely on the natural. Faith is a supernatural gift from God, not a reasoned choice of individuals!

  • Anonymous

    May I ask how the Anglican Ordinariate squares itself with the following extract from the 39 Articles?

    Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

    The Body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

    To Roman Catholics, belief in the Real Presence is a sine qua non.

    There may be little in the liturgy of the Conciliar Church that is foreign to the Anglican liturgies and prayers books, but there is a huge chasm between the Anglican liturgies and the Traditional Roman Catholic Church.

    I am not sure what you mean by “intellectual munchkins” but if you mean someone who has been given the supernatural gift of Faith and is able to accept the entire teachings of the Catholic Church as laid down in the pre-Vatican II Catechism, then please count me amongst them. Those intellectuals who rate their human capacity to reason higher than their Faith are the ones who “progress” to Protestantism.

    If anyone wants to peruse the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church, they can be found here.

    .

  • Js898

    Just the man for the job who knows what to do having been a protege of Cardinal Basil Hume, the head of the English atholic church many years ago. I pray for some robust discussion and quick success on all the remaining issues so that the phrase that they may all be one will come through in our lifetime. Ordinariate is not the way to go! That’s an ill focused solution. The whole communion must be united from the ground up with the liturgy and the bible as the central focus. That’s the only way to go. I comment the retired Walter Kasper’s final words at his farewell reception with the Archbishop of Canterbury. He drew the distinction between unity and uniformity. Let us remember never to confuse the two. That will help unravel the schism. We can be united without being uniform as the United Methodist Church is.

  • Anonymous

    “Ah, the pitfalls of an infallible Church” – what a curious statement. Surely the property of infallibility means that it can be trusted, so what pitfalls can there be?

    As for “”outside the Mystical Body of Christ” there is no etc.”, since when and upon whose authority has this statement replaced the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church?

    The Church made its position quite clear with its denunciation of Feenyism, but as I recall, that clarification did not go as far as to include everyone who claimed some sort of nodding acquaintance with Christianity.

    But I do agree with the need to awaken the soporific pew dwellers who have been sleep-walked into the reformed Catholic Church aka the Conciliar Church. It is high time they woke up and took stock of their position before they find themselves totally Protestantized,

  • Anonymous

    Hmmm. I note you still didn’t answer my previous questions – are you one of those who think that the 1986 CDF document on homosexuality can be ignored by bishops, and do you think that the Church will change Her teaching on homosexuality? If your dissenting comments left on other threads are anything to go by, I think I may already know the answers . . .

  • Js898

    please publish a detailed article in your next issues what are the agreements that have been reached between the two faiths and point by point what has been agreed

  • Parasum

    Gay people are not to blame for his consecration. If he is a bad choice, the Pope was responsible, by choosing him. I never cease to be amazed at the readiness of people to find fault with Papal choices, while the same people try desperately to exonerate from all shadow of blame the Pope who is responsible for their elevation. The sight of them flailing around to keep the Popes beyond criticism, while savaging the men whom the Popes alone have chosen, is utterly pathetic. What makes this sight contemptible, is the loading of all blame on any else but the Pope. So it becomes the fault (in this instance) of the eeeeeevil gays, that Bp. Longley was consecrated. That he could not have been consecrated, but for being chosen by whichever Pope chose him, is carefully ignored. This seems to be typical Churchthink :(

    “[T]hat
    care must be taken to ensure that they do not gather and/or socialise
    with other homosexuals (occasion of sin).”

    By the same reasoning, “care must be taken to ensure that [straight people] do not gather and/or socialise
    with other [straight people]“. If the alleged badness of gay people condemns them, what is to be said of the horrendous behaviour of all those  straight adulterers, fornicators, divorcers, serial marriers, orgiasts, bigamists, child-abusers, wife-beaters, Lotharios, sex toy users, white slavers, & other such foul creatures ? Gay people look very bad – provided one ignores the uncleanness, obscenity & vilenesses of which straight peple have been guilty. Isn’t prejudice wonderful ? People who can look at gay people in that one-sided way, do not believe that gay people are really human. It is not far from that, to gassing them, as Hitler did. So Bp. Longley got one thing right at least. Maybe those who denouce the Soho Masses will also turn their attention to the wrong-doings of those Catholics who are not gay. If they do not, they will look uncommonly like hypocrites. Now that is “an affront to God”.

    The alternative is to stop regarding gay people – and LGBT people generally – as sub-human, or as fit only to be done good to or preached at, or more usually, talked about as non-persons; & to treat them as though they were actually human beings. All this “hate the sin, love the sinner” nonsense is  a way of depersonalising people, and of avoiding loving them. It’s an injury, not a benefit.

  • Parasum

    “Thank you, that confirms the reason why the Church has never knowingly ordained homosexually-inclined men to the priesthood.”

    So why are several Catholic bishops known to have been gay ?

  • Parasum

    “This kind of ecumenical rubbish belongs to the hippy era of the 1960s.”

    Blessed John XXIII, the Servant of God Paul VI, & Blessed John Paul II were hippies ? I had no idea. “Ut Unum Sint” was written in 1995 – not in the ’60s.  ARCIC is half-Papal in origin. Apparently dissent happens only on the “left”; dissent on the “right”, even when it implies rejection of Papal teaching, is not dissent at all. 

    “[T]he Catholic Church does not, will not, cannot approve divorce, homosexual activity and women clergy.” Nice to know she also no longer approves of cosying up to the Mafia (since the 1990s), or of torture or of incinerating “sodomites” and other heretics. Pity about Joan of Arc. Burning a Saint as a heretic is not clever. Presumably the Church still approves of murdering gays – the Pope, who usually has quite a lot to say about most things, was interestingly silent when Mugabe – that nice murderer who was invited to JP2′s funeral – started knocking the Anglicans in Zimbabwe about; apparently that’s acceptable behaviour. The Pope was deafeningly silent when the Ugandan government started treating gay people like dirt; atheists and secularists, to their great credit, were not silent, but very vocal. The Pope did not protest when a Bill in Uganda included the DP for same-sex  practice: apparently the CCC’s rejection of the DP can be ignored if gay people are the target; or, it can be ignored when the Pope  & the Ugandan Parliament share a dislike of something; or, the CCC can be ignored by Ugandan Catholics, though not  by Westerners.